I agree with you here, and as usual a couple of points. If k:> Seedbed doesn't run, can it be said to run as not-run? This isn't trivial; Max Black discussed it in terms of defining blackbirds as not-this, not-that; obviously the list is infinite. Certainly 'Seedbed' as a command tells us something - that the only thing it will run is the generic not-found - but that's something. I do understand the non-issue of reproduction of other work in micro-code, and as you say, Seedbed is referenced; what I was on about, was what sort of reference? There's a whole phenomenology here of course, which might or might not be of interest. - Alan, and thanks
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote: > I think I have to bring things back down to the ground now. After > taking a bit of a break in the country in glorious weather, I see that > this discussion is really going far beyond the work that's being > discussed. Obviously, none of the microcodes that reference other work > (and keep in mind that there only 3 or 4 out 20-some codes that do > this) are meant to be accurate reproductions of those works. Actually, > as reproductions they are meant to fail and in doing so they become > new works of art. "Seedbed" attempts to reference the original > performance with the words "touch myself" and by using the same title. > But the way these words are applied within the code gives them a very > different meaning as code. They also produce a result and it's a > result that has absolutely nothing to do with the non-code meaning of > the works. So these arguments about whether or not the code version > references the original "Seedbed" accurately enough, are entirely > beside the point. > > The reason some of the Microcodes reference older work is to highlight > the differences between the media. To show that while code as a medium > is incapable of reproducing other work created in different media, it > is also a distinct medium of its own that is capable of doing things > that other media can't. > > Your suggestion of "an absolute minimum" wouldn't work as a Microcode > because, as I mentioned earlier, I set a rule for myself, that all of > the codes be runnable. Since, as Alan points out in his post, > "Seedbed" doesn't run as a Unix command, this code wouldn't really be > runnable. > > As mentioned above, the idea is simply to bring the original > performance to mind. No more. Because the medium being used is > incapable of doing more. It's entirely incapable of "bringing it to > life, enacting it, redoing it, reperforming it". At the very most, it > can "suggest it". > > best r. > Pall > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps the problem here is that there >> is no one essence of this performance, or any performance for that matter. >> While you do say "a single 'essence'", and not "the", to me a major part >> of the very idea of performance is to create something which is in excess >> of language and representation, something which the techne of words or >> photo or video don't capture, much less a few lines of code. While I think >> the notion of translating a performance into code is interesting, perhaps >> what this discussion precisely raises is that there are a multiplicity of >> essences, dirtiness, fantasy, masturbation, soreness, mystery, discomfort, >> the body, the absence of the body... Your microcodes seem to be a sort of >> review or remix of another work, based on your personal interpretation. In >> fact, I think that the reduction of the body to a set of files in your >> home directory is in itself an abjection and a sadness, a departure from >> all the rich, sensual complexity of the body and a reduction to a few >> digital bytes. Perhaps the sadness of the digital is expressed very well >> here. >> >>>> Pall Thayer wrote:I guess by "the essence" of the work, I'm >>>> considering the absolute minimum that it takes to bring to mind >>>> "Seedbed" when looking at the code. >> >> Hmm, but here is sounds like you're talking about a simlpe representation, >> and I think being very reductive! Wouldn't the absolute minimum be >> something like >> >> #!/usr/bin/perl >> $p = `seedbed`; >> >> ? When in fact, the interesting part is to go beyond simply bringing the >> performance to mind, but as the furtherfield review writes, to bring it to >> life, to enact it, to redo it, to reperform it, in the form of an actual >> running program? >> >> >>>>>>>> On 2/7/2009, "Alan Sondheim" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The essence it seemed to me wasn't self-referentiality or touch >>>>>>>>> (good >>>>>>>>> unix >>>>>>>>> command too), so much as it was about targeting the ab/use/er, as >>>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> dirtiness. And code's always clean; even dirty code's clean, so >>>>>>>>> there's >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One of the primary reasons that I've "redone" a number of known >>>>>>>>>> pieces >>>>>>>>>> by other artists in these Microcodes is more to point out the >>>>>>>>>> difference between code as a medium and other media. So the point >>>>>>>>>> isn't necessarily to emulate the work as closely as possible but >>>>>>>>>> rather to capture a single "essence" of it in very compact code. I >>>>>>>>>> think that trying to work the incline and fantasies into this >>>>>>>>>> "version" of the work would result in considerably more code which >>>>>>>>>> would in turn make the work overly complex. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > > > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://www.this.is/pallit > ***************************** > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org | [email protected], [email protected], tel US 718-813-3285 ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
